Mr Intensity Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Oh dear JOHANSSON v Ljubicic @ 2.75 Bet365 2pts :@ LOST loss 2pts FERRER v Santoro @ 1.44 William Hill 4pts :@ LOST loss 4pts SHARAPOVA v Hantuchova @ 1.262 Pinnacle 8pts :D WON profit 2.096pts Australian Open Mens Outright RODDICK @ 12.00 EW (1/2 1,2) William Hill 1pt EW :@ LOST loss 2pts W/L = 21/21 Staked = 164pts Profit = -11.822pts Yield = -7.21% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Intensity Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) DAVYDENKO v Hrbaty @ 1.53 Paddy Power 4pts Davydenko leads the H2H 2-1 and 2-0 on hard courts. I tend to like the H2H when two players with very similar styles play each other as we have here. Hrbaty has had to fight through 3 5 setters to get this far and he came from the brink of defeat to beat Andreev. This makes him very opposable here as he is clearly in pretty poor form and also there has to be a worry over fatigue. I've backed Hrbaty a few times already this year and I've usually cited his very good record in this part of the world and the strong results he has had at the beginning of the past few years - but I think he's being affected by the huge effort he put in the Davis Cup final and the loss has hurt him a lot. Davydenko has also had to come through some tough matches but I think he has got stronger as the tournament has gone on and I expect him to be strong here. I remember him after last years Aussie Open saying that the Rebound Ace used here is his favourite surface - well that certain appears so after he reached the quarters last year and already won 3 matches here this year. I expect Danydenko to move better in this match and get back a lot of balls and grind Hrbaty out. KIEFER v Chela @ 1.72 Paddy Power 4pts I wasn't sure about Kiefer earlier on in the tournament but the 4 set win over Ferrero has impressed me. He looks to be over the ankle problems that had affected him earlier in the tournament and looks to be playing well. Chela has been playing well, but a non-performances from Vliegen and Murray and a very dodgy Hewitt hasn't been the toughest of routes through. Still questions about him on this surface and although he is serving very well I think Kiefer will be able to control most of the baseline exchanges. Kiefer has more experience in the later part of slams having reached the quarters of the Aussie and US Opens and several over 4th round appearances. Chela previously has one quarter final at the French and a 4th round at the US Open but has never previously been past the 3rd round of the Aussie. Past 12 months in Slams Chela went 4-2 and Kiefer went 11-3 showing a lot more experience and wins in 5 set matches. In fact, since the start of 2000 Kiefer is 35-36 in best of 5 matches compared to Chelas 26-22. Kiefer will be too strong in this one in my opinion. DAVYDENKO + KIEFER double @ 2.65 Paddy Power 2pts As Paddy Power go best price (even above Pinnacle and Betfair) on this I think the double is worth a go as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edtkh Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) No' date=' you are a muppet if you are the overwelming favourite losing to a no name. Its not like Roddick was injured, he was fully healthy.[/quote'] So how many muppets did Nadal play last year en route to his success at Roland Garros? Get a life - if you'd seen the match, you'd realise it wasn't a case of Roddick not being at the races as much as Baghdatis being outstanding... Being overwhelming favourite or not obviously has nothing to do with the fact the better player on the day - by the law of averages anyway - wins more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Nadal was not a no-name, he was like the 2nd favourite for the tournament out of the 128 competitors. So many many people including myself actually expected Nadal to win Roland Garros. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ted Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Sharapova must win now, just hope she is healthy and takes the title. Only player that really stands in her way is Henin-H, cos she always beats Petrova and Davenport. LOL - no any win for Sharapova in 2006 Aussie! Petrova is too good for her! She can scream she can do whatever she wants but still will be second best in the match against Nadia Petrova as I see her, H-H and Vaidisova as potencial winners this year! That was so close to win her in US Open and I'm sure she'll do it this time! Goodbye Mashinka :moon She is more motivated and really she's a top class player! Upset for being undervalued. She went as good as Maria in Aussie and her play is more impressive. Andperformance against Daniela Hantuchova didn't convince me at all! So wish you all luck - especially - Petrova! Take your money! Talking 'bout Vaidisova. I really didn't see a nice play from Mauresmo. Should be punished and that's why Vaidisova is here :) Sharapova - Petrova @3.25 (willhill) 70 pts Vaidisova - Mauresmo @2.5 (willhill) 15 pts Davydenko, Vaidisova, Petrova @11.4 (willhill) 15pts Starting bank 100pts Profit 21pts Current 121pts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edtkh Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Nadal was not a no-name' date=' he was like the 2nd favourite for the tournament out of the 128 competitors. So many many people including myself actually expected Nadal to win Roland Garros.[/quote'] Nadal did not start the year being a favourite in too many matches - even claycourt ones. His prices shortened gradually as he went on that magnificent run which culminated with his triumph at Roland Garros. In fact, he'd even been an underdog in the 2004 Davis Cup final match with Roddick(yes, on clay). So how many muppets must he have beaten when he started the year being odds-against in so many matches? If you'd genuinely thought Roddick was a muppet today(I'd be amazed if you'd even watched that match), go back to whatever game you'd been watching - obviously you know your tennis as well as Rafael Benitez knows his cricket... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edtkh Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) DAVYDENKO v Hrbaty @ 1.53 Paddy Power 4pts Davydenko leads the H2H 2-1 and 2-0 on hard courts. I tend to like the H2H when two players with very similar styles play each other as we have here. Hrbaty has had to fight through 3 5 setters to get this far and he came from the brink of defeat to beat Andreev. This makes him very opposable here as he is clearly in pretty poor form and also there has to be a worry over fatigue. I've backed Hrbaty a few times already this year and I've usually cited his very good record in this part of the world and the strong results he has had at the beginning of the past few years - but I think he's being affected by the huge effort he put in the Davis Cup final and the loss has hurt him a lot. Davydenko has also had to come through some tough matches but I think he has got stronger as the tournament has gone on and I expect him to be strong here. I remember him after last years Aussie Open saying that the Rebound Ace used here is his favourite surface - well that certain appears so after he reached the quarters last year and already won 3 matches here this year. I expect Danydenko to move better in this match and get back a lot of balls and grind Hrbaty out. KIEFER v Chela @ 1.72 Paddy Power 4pts I wasn't sure about Kiefer earlier on in the tournament but the 4 set win over Ferrero has impressed me. He looks to be over the ankle problems that had affected him earlier in the tournament and looks to be playing well. Chela has been playing well, but a non-performances from Vliegen and Murray and a very dodgy Hewitt hasn't been the toughest of routes through. Still questions about him on this surface and although he is serving very well I think Kiefer will be able to control most of the baseline exchanges. Kiefer has more experience in the later part of slams having reached the quarters of the Aussie and US Opens and several over 4th round appearances. Chela previously has one quarter final at the French and a 4th round at the US Open but has never previously been past the 3rd round of the Aussie. Past 12 months in Slams Chela went 4-2 and Kiefer went 11-3 showing a lot more experience and wins in 5 set matches. In fact, since the start of 2000 Kiefer is 35-36 in best of 5 matches compared to Chelas 26-22. Kiefer will be too strong in this one in my opinion. DAVYDENKO + KIEFER double @ 2.65 Paddy Power 2pts As Paddy Power go best price (even above Pinnacle and Betfair) on this I think the double is worth a go as well. That's a cracking double, Mr I. Davydenko looks even more tempting when you consider Hrbaty is coming into this one on the back of three 5-setters... :eek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Intensity Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) That's a cracking double, Mr I. Davydenko looks even more tempting when you consider Hrbaty is coming into this one on the back of three 5-setters... :eek I hope so ed:hope Not too happy about Roddick. In the last two slams he's lost to Baghdatis and Muller. Both performances have been very average. Could perhaps be a deeper problem than just being outplayed on the day? Cracking performance by Baghdatis. Didn't expect him to win such a big match so soon. Just looking back at the "long term tennis" thread - he wasn't even on the list to finish in the top 8:lol . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Nadal did not start the year being a favourite in too many matches - even claycourt ones. His prices shortened gradually as he went on that magnificent run which culminated with his triumph at Roland Garros. In fact, he'd even been an underdog in the 2004 Davis Cup final match with Roddick(yes, on clay). So how many muppets must he have beaten when he started the year being odds-against in so many matches? If you'd genuinely thought Roddick was a muppet today(I'd be amazed if you'd even watched that match), go back to whatever game you'd been watching - obviously you know your tennis as well as Rafael Benitez knows his cricket... Roddick was 8/11 favourite in that match against Nadal in 2004. When I say HEAVY favourite I mean 1/8, 1/7 etc... not 8/11 or 4/5. Nadal's opponent has never been like that on clay. Against Federer in the Frenh open semi's, Federer was 8/11. Do u understand odds? 8/11 is not the same as 1/8. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference. You just think a favourite is a favourite, I suggest you learn some simple Maths.:wall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Intensity Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Hey edkth, Thought you'd like to know that Joachim Johansson is making his comeback in San Jose next month:clap :clap. However, his doctor has advised him not to play on clay this year:lol :lol . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Hey edkth, Thought you'd like to know that Joachim Johansson is making his comeback in San Jose next month:clap :clap. However, his doctor has advised him not to play on clay this year:lol :lol . he is the ace machine, very exciting player he was well good this time last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edtkh Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Roddick was 8/11 favourite in that match against Nadal in 2004. When I say HEAVY favourite I mean 1/8, 1/7 etc... not 8/11 or 4/5. Nadal's opponent has never been like that on clay. Against Federer in the Frenh open semi's, Federer was 8/11. Do u understand odds? 8/11 is not the same as 1/8. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference. You just think a favourite is a favourite, I suggest you learn some simple Maths.:wall What bollocks are you on about? Nadal was a 7/4 shot at many books for the 2004 Davis Cup final against Roddick on clay at many books...So even as far as that goes, it hardly looks a 50/50 shot on paper, does it? To drive home your point using your examples, so do you consider Federer a muppet? In 3 of the 4 matches he lost last year(yes, except for the one against Nadal at Roland Garros), Federer was actually shorter than what Roddick was on yesterday against Baghdatis. So what simple maths have you learned from the Federer example - is Federer a muppet or are you making as much sense as a toddler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edtkh Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Hey edkth, Thought you'd like to know that Joachim Johansson is making his comeback in San Jose next month:clap :clap. However, his doctor has advised him not to play on clay this year:lol :lol . He must be another one driving Agassi to his grave - no wonder he was complaining about this new generation of players who could do absolutely nothing besides serving to save his life... :rollin :rollin Then again, his doc was probably in Rome to watch him last year and just gave him an honest assessment as a tennis fan more than anything. :tongue2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevshat Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Without meaning to butt in on an argument, surely the football team you support are also muppets given that they were 1/20 as in 1 to 20 to win at Burton 2 weeks ago and failed? Anyway chaps. I'm considering a double tonight, Grosjean and Davydenko. I've read the thoughts on Davydenko but what about Grosjean? Surely he looks a good thing against Mathieu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Intensity Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Anyway chaps. I'm considering a double tonight, Grosjean and Davydenko. I've read the thoughts on Davydenko but what about Grosjean? Surely he looks a good thing against Mathieu? Grosjean - Mathieu is an awful match to bet on. We know Grosjean is the better player but Mathieu is playing well and hasn't dropped a set. Also this will be a very flashy match and that could suit Mathieu. Should be nice to watch but don't fancy betting on it. A nice stat if you fancy Grosjean is that since the beginning of 2000 he is 18-15 vs fellow Frenchman whilst Mathieu is 13-18 and 3-7 in his last 10. Having said that, Grosjean is a bigger price than I expected him to be - but don't like the match at all:unsure :unsure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) What bollocks are you on about? Nadal was a 7/4 shot at many books for the 2004 Davis Cup final against Roddick on clay at many books...So even as far as that goes, it hardly looks a 50/50 shot on paper, does it? To drive home your point using your examples, so do you consider Federer a muppet? In 3 of the 4 matches he lost last year(yes, except for the one against Nadal at Roland Garros), Federer was actually shorter than what Roddick was on yesterday against Baghdatis. So what simple maths have you learned from the Federer example - is Federer a muppet or are you making as much sense as a toddler? Bollocks? Roddick was 8/11 i guarantee you before the match in davis cup. Federer was 1/5 against safin, thats not shorter than roddicks odds, also Safin went on to win the tournement and safin is not a no-name like bagdatis. if Bagdatis goes onto win, i shall eat my words. Same with nalbandian, he won the masters. Federer's really bad loss was against gasquaet and that was on clay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Without meaning to butt in on an argument, surely the football team you support are also muppets given that they were 1/20 as in 1 to 20 to win at Burton 2 weeks ago and failed? Anyway chaps. I'm considering a double tonight, Grosjean and Davydenko. I've read the thoughts on Davydenko but what about Grosjean? Surely he looks a good thing against Mathieu? did we qualify or did we get knocked out? Roddick got knocked out, Man utd didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Intensity Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Bollocks? Roddick was 8/11 i guarantee you before the match in davis cup. Federer was 1/5 against safin, thats not shorter than roddicks odds, also Safin went on to win the tournement and safin is not a no-name like bagdatis. if Bagdatis goes onto win, i shall eat my words. Same with nalbandian, he won the masters. Federer's really bad loss was against gasquaet and that was on clay. How exactly is Baghdatis a no-name?:unsure :unsure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevshat Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Grosjean - Mathieu is an awful match to bet on. We know Grosjean is the better player but Mathieu is playing well and hasn't dropped a set. Also this will be a very flashy match and that could suit Mathieu. Should be nice to watch but don't fancy betting on it. A nice stat if you fancy Grosjean is that since the beginning of 2000 he is 18-15 vs fellow Frenchman whilst Mathieu is 13-18 and 3-7 in his last 10. Having said that, Grosjean is a bigger price than I expected him to be - but don't like the match at all:unsure :unsure Excellent stuff as ever Mr I. I'll play it simple. I'll stick Hingis in instead! :ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevshat Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) did we qualify or did we get knocked out? Roddick got knocked out, Man utd didn't. Does it matter? Neither would have given me a payout. Bunch of muppets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Does it matter? Neither would have given me a payout. Bunch of muppets. Roddick HAD to win to stay in tournement, Man Utd didn't have to win to stay in tournament so didn't care as much so u don't bet on matches teams don't need to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) How exactly is Baghdatis a no-name?:unsure :unsure How many non-tennis fans have heard of bagdatis? Its a different story with safin and nalbandian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) How exactly is Baghdatis a no-name?:unsure :unsure How many non-tennis fans have heard of bagdatis? Its a different story with safin and nalbandian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FootballTennis Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) How exactly is Baghdatis a no-name?:unsure :unsure How many non-tennis fans have heard of bagdatis? Its a different story with safin and nalbandian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevshat Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Roddick HAD to win to stay in tournement' date=' Man Utd didn't have to win to stay in tournament so didn't care as much so u don't bet on matches teams don't need to win.[/quote'] So you never bet on football in this country then? Maybe the correct thing to do is not back these short priced favourites if you're not prepared to be done over by one of them losing, which they inevitably will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Intensity Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) How many non-tennis fans have heard of bagdatis? Its a different story with safin and nalbandian Non-tennis fans can **** off. You means the likes that haven't heard of Coria and Chela because they don't do well at Wimbledon? If Baghdatis was 25 you might have a point but he's a youngster and clearly moving up the ranking - just like Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Djokovic and Murray;) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulenos Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) did we qualify or did we get knocked out? Roddick got knocked out, Man utd didn't. Roddick got knocked out and cost the backers. ManU didn't get knocked out and cost the backers as well. As this is not the fan but the betting forum, what's the difference then? Neither obliged @ a price which qualifies as money buying. Anyway, this doesn't mean anyone who lets you down is a muppet. It's always down to punters who think the price is right in these sorts of matches. Otherwise you would defo end up with all players and teams qualifying as muppets and would have to call betting a day as there would be no-one left to back. Even the mentioned Federer who loses from time to time as everyone else. Otherwise books would not exist, FootballTennis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulenos Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Non-tennis fans can **** off. You means the likes that haven't heard of Coria and Chela because they don't do well at Wimbledon? If Baghdatis was 25 you might have a point but he's a youngster and clearly moving up the ranking - just like Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Djokovic and Murray;) . And quite a few others and even more in women's tennis (Vaidisova, Benesova...);) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulenos Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) How many non-tennis fans have heard of bagdatis? How many tennis-only backers have heard of Smith, Saha, Richardson or Fletcher?;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ted Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Demolished Vaidisova 6-1 6-1... And it is only her fault! 34 unforced errors against 2. She just hit net or out with no play at all! That was not a tennis! Maybe she thought it was a training session :lol Take that Nicole :spank :rollin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.8c5a15b710f7a4188ce438df64354c1e.JPG)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.